Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[RoccoR]

et al,

This discussion goes in circles. You should stop this line of discussion because no matter what you put in front of P F Tinmore, no agreement, no treaty, no reality on the ground is going to alter his perception that somehow the territory to which the Mandate applied --- all belongs to Palestine today.

And this belief is what continues to feed the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?

Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.

Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.

The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.

Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.

So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel

Article 53.
TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

So which International laws did these treaties conflict with then, give details of the Laws and dates of implementation.



Then explain why you manipulated the cut and paste to say other than its intended context



Article 53. TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM

OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory

norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a


peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by


the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no deroga


tion is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general in


ternational law having the same character.



Destroys your whole argument when it is posted in full

How does that change anything? It is merely a clarification.

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

This discussion goes in circles. You should stop this line of discussion because no matter what you put in front of P F Tinmore, no agreement, no treaty, no reality on the ground is going to alter his perception that somehow the territory to which the Mandate applied --- all belongs to Palestine today.

And this belief is what continues to feed the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Most respectfully,
R

Indeed, and when I ask for proof otherwise I always get a song and dance.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually it is NOT.

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The Treaty of London (Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty) was signed between the United Kingdom and Transjordan on March 22, 1946 and came into force on June 17, 1946

The Making of Transjordan
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​

(COMMENT)

As the area to which the Mandate for Palestine changes, so does the territory; and by definition, the area described as Palestine.

When Jordan was granted independence (His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.) and the Mandate for Palestine no longer applied to Transjordan, by definition "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine," also changed.

Now, some claim that the Mandate is still active, and has never been official terminated, it is just without a Mandatory. The opposing claim is that under Chapter XII --- Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (territories now held under mandate), the territory to which the mandate applied was transferred to the International Trustee System. However the Mandate, and the authority with it, appears to still be in effect in 1946 when the Mandatory recognized the Emir as the Sovereign over the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

It does when the borders given happen to have been called Jewish Palestine, and the land known as Jordan was called arab Palestine. And it is nice of you to admit that Palestine described in the mandate is all Jewish owned

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually it is NOT.

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The Treaty of London (Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty) was signed between the United Kingdom and Transjordan on March 22, 1946 and came into force on June 17, 1946

The Making of Transjordan (Request Rejected
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​

(COMMENT)

As the area to which the Mandate for Palestine changes, so does the territory; and by definition, the area described as Palestine.

When Jordan was granted independence (His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.) and the Mandate for Palestine no longer applied to Transjordan, by definition "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine," also changed.

Now, some claim that the Mandate is still active, and has never been official terminated, it is just without a Mandatory. The opposing claim is that under Chapter XII --- Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (territories now held under mandate, the territory to which the mandate applied was transferred to the International Trustee System. However the Mandate, and the authority with it, appears to still be in effect in 1946 when the Mandatory recognized the Emir as the Sovereign over the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

Why do you keep posting this? Legally there was no Palestine until 1924.

 

[Phoenall]

Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.

Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.

The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.

Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.

So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel

Article 53.
TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

So which International laws did these treaties conflict with then, give details of the Laws and dates of implementation.



Then explain why you manipulated the cut and paste to say other than its intended context



Article 53. TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM

OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory

norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a


peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by


the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no deroga


tion is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general in


ternational law having the same character.



Destroys your whole argument when it is posted in full

How does that change anything? It is merely a clarification.

YEP it very clearly says that the rule can not be used retrospectively and that it does apply to any treaty made under international law prior to the date of the resolution. It also says peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by he international community of States .
You really need to learn English

 

[Phoenall]

++-

et al,

This discussion goes in circles. You should stop this line of discussion because no matter what you put in front of P F Tinmore, no agreement, no treaty, no reality on the ground is going to alter his perception that somehow the territory to which the Mandate applied --- all belongs to Palestine today.

And this belief is what continues to feed the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Most respectfully,
R

Indeed, and when I ask for proof otherwise I always get a song and dance.

Which is what you get in full and explained in detail, so you cant refute the answer . So all you can do is complain about the length of the answer because you cant take it all in.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually it is NOT.

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The Treaty of London (Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty) was signed between the United Kingdom and Transjordan on March 22, 1946 and came into force on June 17, 1946

The Making of Transjordan
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​

(COMMENT)

As the area to which the Mandate for Palestine changes, so does the territory; and by definition, the area described as Palestine.

When Jordan was granted independence (His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.) and the Mandate for Palestine no longer applied to Transjordan, by definition "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine," also changed.

Now, some claim that the Mandate is still active, and has never been official terminated, it is just without a Mandatory. The opposing claim is that under Chapter XII --- Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (territories now held under mandate), the territory to which the mandate applied was transferred to the International Trustee System. However the Mandate, and the authority with it, appears to still be in effect in 1946 when the Mandatory recognized the Emir as the Sovereign over the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, The area for the territory of Trans-Jordanian was accounted for separately. A Mandate is a piece of paper not a territory.

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually it is NOT.

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The Treaty of London (Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty) was signed between the United Kingdom and Transjordan on March 22, 1946 and came into force on June 17, 1946

The Making of Transjordan (Request Rejected
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​

(COMMENT)

As the area to which the Mandate for Palestine changes, so does the territory; and by definition, the area described as Palestine.

When Jordan was granted independence (His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.) and the Mandate for Palestine no longer applied to Transjordan, by definition "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine," also changed.

Now, some claim that the Mandate is still active, and has never been official terminated, it is just without a Mandatory. The opposing claim is that under Chapter XII --- Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (territories now held under mandate, the territory to which the mandate applied was transferred to the International Trustee System. However the Mandate, and the authority with it, appears to still be in effect in 1946 when the Mandatory recognized the Emir as the Sovereign over the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

Why do you keep posting this? Legally there was no Palestine until 1924.

Depends on what you mean by Palestine, if you mean the area of land named by the Roman invaders then that is legally represented, if you mean the area destined for the mandate of Palestine then that came about legally in 1917. Then if you are being stupid and meaning the Mandate of Palestine that you try and pass of as the nation of Palestine then that is just propaganda.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually it is NOT.

I am not sure what your point is Rocco. By definition, the area that was geographically defined as Palestine by the text in the Mandate, is the area that is Palestine. The fact that a group of Europeans named a large part of it Israel doesn't change the borders of the Palestine described in the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

The Treaty of London (Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty) was signed between the United Kingdom and Transjordan on March 22, 1946 and came into force on June 17, 1946

The Making of Transjordan
On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​

(COMMENT)

As the area to which the Mandate for Palestine changes, so does the territory; and by definition, the area described as Palestine.

When Jordan was granted independence (His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.) and the Mandate for Palestine no longer applied to Transjordan, by definition "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine," also changed.

Now, some claim that the Mandate is still active, and has never been official terminated, it is just without a Mandatory. The opposing claim is that under Chapter XII --- Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (territories now held under mandate), the territory to which the mandate applied was transferred to the International Trustee System. However the Mandate, and the authority with it, appears to still be in effect in 1946 when the Mandatory recognized the Emir as the Sovereign over the nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, The area for the territory of Trans-Jordanian was accounted for separately. A Mandate is a piece of paper not a territory.

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

Not according to the Mandate for Palestine that states that trans joran is part of the mandate for Palestine , and stayed as such until 1947

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne did not change the basics that had been already applied; did not effect any of the Mandates.

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

Why do you keep posting this? Legally there was no Palestine until 1924.

(COMMENT)

The League of Nations never abolished the Palestine Order in Council. It was passed by the Council.

SECTION I. REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE FOR 1924: 31 DECEMBER 1924.
"The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine as a territory detached from Turkey and administered under a Mandate entrusted to His Majesty's Government."
​

The Treaty just "regularized" the status, it did not create the status or alter the status in reality. Again, the Treaty does not mention Palestine, only the Syrian District.

Palestine was always within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers. Your denial of the enemy occupation of the territory, the establishment of the survey in the territory, the San Remo decisions over the territory, the Mandate by the League of Nations for the territory, does not change the fact that it all happened; to include the League of Nations issuing the Palestine Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The territory to which the Mandate is applied.

No Rocco, The area for the territory of Trans-Jordanian was accounted for separately. A Mandate is a piece of paper not a territory.

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

(CLARIFICATION)

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

• • 
    "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 15th session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 19 July 1929
​

Thus --- there should be no doubt in your mind.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Just because YOU don't recognize Israel, doesn't mean it's not there. 'Palestine' is at war with Israel and yes, they are neighbours.

Palestine is the orange. What's so hard to understand ? A 3rd grader could comprehend this.

Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?

Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.

Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.

The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.

Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.

So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel

Article 53.
TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

Where does it say 'void'?

Just because YOU don't recognize Israel, doesn't mean it's not there. 'Palestine' is at war with Israel and yes, they are neighbours.

Palestine is the orange. What's so hard to understand ? A 3rd grader could comprehend this.

Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?

Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.

Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.

The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.

Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.

So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel

Article 53.
TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

Concerning your post about Israel 100% being inside armistice lines

You're a fuckin liar, you know that ? We have already debated this and I destroyed your "Israel has no borders" lie

I provided plenty of evidence that CLEARLY show Israel inside internationally recognized boundaries. You on the other hand provided ZERO evidence for your claim.

So, if you want to compare our evidence again, lt me know. But I suspect you will decline because you know I will make a fool out of you again.

Stop lying. Just admit that you do not recognize Israel.

Oh, and remember: Tinmore laws DO NOT appply to real life.

 

[Art__Allm]

Du musstest unbedingt in ein solches Wespennest herumstochern, nicht wahr?

Damn.

Jetzt muss ich Dich mit allen Kräften schööön peitschen.

Wenn ich höre, daß ein Deutscher über die Juden so herfällt, reagiere ich GANZ allergisch darauf.

Arschloch.

Another example of ad-hominem and anti-German hate, expressed in German language (is this permissible in an English forum?), but still no counter arguments.

My opponents do not even try to attack my arguments, they only are able to attack my personality, and their "argument" goes like that: If you are of German ancestry, then you have to close an eye on the crimes of Zionists.



I think that this "argument" is a racist anti-German pseudo-argument.

This hasbara-tactic is implying a collective responsibility of one group of people (Germans, born after war) and the collective irresponsibility of another group of people (Jews, that can get away with the crimes of Zionists against Palestinians, that are committed TODAY!!!).

This double standard is applied due to the different bloodline of the two groups of people that are mentioned above, ant this is pure racism!!!

How can my bloodline have any influence on the validity of my arguments?

My arguments are true or false, if you believe that they are false, then attack my arguments without making any insinuation about my bloodline.

And please do this in the language that is accepted in this forum.

I also have an opinion about your personality, but I will not make any comments about you, because this is irrelevant.

Even biggest a**holes can have valid arguments or counter arguments, but you have not put forward any arguments, you just attacked me personally.

I am a grown up person, and I will not engage in an infantile name calling.

So please put up or just shut up!

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The territory to which the Mandate is applied.

No Rocco, The area for the territory of Trans-Jordanian was accounted for separately. A Mandate is a piece of paper not a territory.

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

(CLARIFICATION)

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

• • 
    "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 15th session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 19 July 1929
​

Thus --- there should be no doubt in your mind.

Most Respectfully,
R

There should be no doubt in your mind that Trans-Jordania was accounted for as a separate territory with the mandate.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

The territory to which the Mandate is applied.

No Rocco, The area for the territory of Trans-Jordanian was accounted for separately. A Mandate is a piece of paper not a territory.

"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921

(CLARIFICATION)

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

• • 
    "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 15th session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 19 July 1929
​

Thus --- there should be no doubt in your mind.

Most Respectfully,
R

There should be no doubt in your mind that Trans-Jordania was accounted for as a separate territory with the mandate.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


Article 25

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.


So as the Mandate shows you are LYING AGAIN and it covered Jordan right up until 1947

 

[CMike]

Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.

I doesn't get a redo now.

How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.

"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "

CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency

Excellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.

Nassar blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.

There were daily incursions attacking Israel.

Nassar was amasssing Egyptian troops on the border.

And Nasser was threatening repeatedly that he will annihilate Israel.

However if we are talking about Jordan and the West Bank. Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war.

King Hussein of Jordan attacked Israel. In the course of it, Jordan lost the West Bank, and their hold on Jerusalem.

Also, Syria was shooting artillery at Israeli Kibbutizim without Israel even engaging with Syria. Syria wouldn't stop so they lost the Golan Heights.

Seems like he should have taken Israel's advice and stayed out of it.

Michael Oren

And you talk about my sources. You scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Let's take it one at a time.

Which one do you deny?

Right before the 1967 way
Egypt
Closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.

Amassed troops right on the border

Violated Israel's airspace with planes

Infilitrated and attacked Israelis in Israel

Nassar called repeatedly for Israel's annihilitation

Israel asked Jordan numerous times to stay out of the war, and Jordan did not.

Which one are you challenging?

 

[CMike]

Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.

I doesn't get a redo now.

How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.

"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "

CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency

Excellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.

Nassar blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.

There were daily incursions attacking Israel.

Nassar was amasssing Egyptian troops on the border.

And Nasser was threatening repeatedly that he will annihilate Israel.

However if we are talking about Jordan and the West Bank. Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war.

King Hussein of Jordan attacked Israel. In the course of it, Jordan lost the West Bank, and their hold on Jerusalem.

Also, Syria was shooting artillery at Israeli Kibbutizim without Israel even engaging with Syria. Syria wouldn't stop so they lost the Golan Heights.

Seems like he should have taken Israel's advice and stayed out of it.

Michael Oren, you mean the American born US citizen that decided to become an Israeli citizen. As an American, I don't like people that prefer to become citizens of foreign countries. Nor do I believe anything that turncoats write.

And I should care what you think because?